The URL can be used to link to this page

6. Variance 3637 So. Cedar Dr.MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CITYOF CHANHASSEN ??00 ~da ke' BOU evard pr) Bux 147 Cqar~r~as eu MN 553!7 Administration Pr, r> h52 227 !100 kix cfi,; ?27 1110 Building Inspections ,,2~z 18P Engineering Phn ~e 952 227 1160 ~ax 952227 1] 70 Finance Ph,il~ 902 2?7 1140 952 '22/1110 Park & Recreation Ph ~r e: 952 2271120 Fax: 952 227 1110 Reoreati ~ Center 2310 Co dler Boulevard Prior ~.: 952227 1400 F<x 952 227 1404 Planning & Natural Resources Pr)( 952227! !30 Fax 952 227 1110 Public Works 159! Puck R)ad P !nne: 9{222 ? 130g Fax: 952 2271310 Senior Center Ph~ue 952 227 1125 Fax: 952 227 1i 10 Web Site '¢,,,~.",,', ,i haiq'asserl Fqr/LJS FROM: DATE: SUB J: Bob Generous, Senior Planner0~.,. March 8, 2004 Johnson Variance, 3637 South Cedar Drive - Planning Case #04-07 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 17, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the request for setback variances from the front (a 19.3 foot variance from the 30-foot setback requirement for a 10.7 foot setback), side (a 2.6 foot variance from the 10-foot side yard setback for a 7.4 foot setback) and lakeshore (a 6.2 foot variance from the 75-foot setback requirement for a 68.8 foot setback) to permit the expansion of their home. The majority of the expansion would take place over existing impervious surface; however, there would still be an increase in impervious surface to 46.6 percent from 43.9 percent. Since the Planning Commission vote resulted in less than 75 percent of the Planning Commission, their vote acts a recommendation to City Council. The applicant has submitted plans that eliminate the side yard setback variance by redesigning the addition with a 2-foot, 6-inch (2'6") jog at the garage. They have also redesigned the deck to follow the line of the addition. They would still need a variance for the deck, since any addition would need to meet the 75-foot setback, but Council could limit the va-lance to the connection as shown on the plans stamped received March 2, 2004. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a simple majority vote of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 17, 2004, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted three for and two against a motion approving the front yard setback variance and denial of the side and shoreland setbacks and impervious surface variances. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the two motions of the staff report: approving the front yard setback variance and denying the side yard and shoreland setback and the impervious surface variances. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Dan Anderson to City of Chanhassen Council Members dated 2/29/04. 2. Revised Main Floor Plan showing redesign interior and deck. 3. Revised Plan Showing Addition being removed from the Previous Plan. 4. Staff Report Dated 2/17/04. 5. Planning Commission Minutes of 2/17/04. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-07 -johnson variance\executive summary.doc The City of Chanhassen · A growing oommunity ~',z ih clean lakes quality schools, a charming downtown thriving businesses, winding trails and beautilul parks A great place to live work an,3 Blab, February 29th, 2004 City of Chanhassen Council members Re: moving the foot print of the current design. To whom it may concern, As per the plans you will find that on the east property line we have moved the addition in from the original corner of the garage 2'6". The south east comer of the new deck has been removed and the new lay out follows the foot prints of the new addition as per plan. We feel this will satisfy all planning and council member and provide compliance with the current code and set back, also the messurement 2'-6" allows room for the soffit. space as well. Thank~ _/~ Dan AnEersL'fi D.James architectural design LIvln~ U~ood Floor Floor TII~ Floor The ~'ollo~uln~ chancjes alii shou~ the east side of the netu &ddltlon and deck, have bm modified to ~ho~J tbs h~e mov In 2~" trc~ the ~l~ln&l corner and the d~, east~ UJest corner been clipped and brc~ht on the match tbs out line oi' the south exterior (MAIN LEVEL CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 0 2 2004 CHANHA$SEN PLANNING DEPT sOt~~ FOUNO ~/2' BITUMINOUS SURFACE SEWER IRON PIPE EXISTING GARAGE FLR EL = 957.5 EXISTING S'i'RUCTURE RAILROAD TIe EXISTING RESIDENCE~ LOW FLOOR 957.4 PROPOSED NEW DECK EXISTING RESIDENCE CAPPED IRON APPROXIMATE AREA OF RiP RAP OHW LEVEL CONTOUR lINE WATER LEVEL DEC 2003 MINNI~WA Dwg. No. 031571 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: February 17, 2004 CC DATE: March 8, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: 03/20/04 CASE #: 04-07 BY: RG, LH, ML, JS, ST STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a single-family home. 3637 South Cedar Drive Lot 17, except the east 10 feet thereof, and Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Tom and Jackie Johnson 3637 South Cedar Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: 2020 LAND USE PLAN: ACREAGE: 0.27 acre RSF, Single Family Residential and Shoreland Management District Residential - Low Density DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for a variance from the front, side and lakeshore setback requirements and a lot coverage variance to expand a single-family home. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high leve[ of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. Planning Case #04-07 Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting setback variances from the front (a 19.3 foot variance from the 30 foot setback requirement for a 10.7 foot setback), side (a 2.6 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for a 7.4 foot setback) and lakeshore (a 6.2 foot variance from the 75 foot setback requirement for a 68.8 foot setback) to permit the expansion of their home to connect the garage and the house, to add an entrance vestibule, to create a larger kitchen, to add three bedrooms and to expand the deck. The majority of the expansion would take place over existing impervious surface; however, there would still be an increase in impervious surface to 46.6 percent from 43.9 percent. The applicant could complete a majority of the building expansion without the need for a variance. This can be achieved by maintaining the 10 foot side yard setback by either aligning the expansion to parallel the property line or moving the expansion in 2.6 feet along its length, and reducing the area of the deck to maintain a 75 foot setback from the lake, which would still provide ample deck area in front of the proposed expansion. The only area of the expansion that would require a variance would be the bedrooms over the garage, which is currently non-conforming, and the expanded garage. Staff believes that the expansion of the garage to include second story bedrooms is a reasonable request and is recommending approval with the condition that the existing impervious surface be reduced. However, staff does not support the other variances for side, lakeshore and impervious surface coverage and is recommending denial. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-72(a) states that there shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. Section 20-72 (b) states that any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. Section 20-481 (a) requires a 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation of recreational development lakes. Section 20-615 (4) of the zoning ordinance permits maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. Section 20-615 (5) of the zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard and a 10 foot side yard setback for properties zoned RSF. BACKGROUND The subdivision including this property was recorded on August 30, 1913. The house was constructed in 1943. The development of this house on the lot predates the existing zoning ordinance. Planning Case #04-07 Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 3 Case # Address Variance Notes 04-07 3637 South Cedar Dr. 19.3' front, 2.6' side and 6.2' lakeshore proposed 1975 3715 South Cedar Dr. 20' front Approved for garage 81-8 3607 Red Cedar Point 13.5' and 7.5 lakeshores setback Approved for deck and entry 82-12 3732 Hickory Ln. 2' side and 33' lakeshore Approved, 11,342 sq. ft. lot 85-20 3624 Red Cedar Pt. 1.8' front Approved for garage 85-26 3713 South Cedar Dr. 15' front Approved for garage, 6,500 sq. ft. lot 85-27 3701 South Cedar Dr. 5' front and 35' lakeshore Approved for addition 87-10 3601 Red Cedar Pt. 45' lakeshore setback Approved for addition, peninsula lot 87-13 3629 Red Cedar Pt. 12' front and 3' side Approved for new house 88-11 3605 Red Cedar Pt. 4' side and 2' side Approved for expanded garage and house 91-4 3727 South Cedar Dr. 79' lot width Approved for new house, triangular parcel 92-1 3607 Red Cedar Pt. 1.5' side and 14.5' lakeshore Approved for garage and house expansion 93-3 3841 Red Cedar Pt. 2' side Approved for garage 93-6 3618 Red Cedar Pt. 15' lakeshore and 8' side Approved for deck & porch 96-4 3705 South Cedar Dr. 3' side yards, 31' lakeshore and 25% Approved for house impervious 2000-9 3733 Hickory Ln. 18' front, 5' side and 5% impervious Approved for garage 2002-5 3628 Hickory Ln. 13' front and 5' side Approved for garage ANALYSIS The applicant could perform a majority of the expansion without the need for a variance. The incorporation of the existing garage is problematic since the majority of that structure does not meet the required front setback of 30 feet. It is reasonable for the homeowner to want to incorporate this structure into the overall remodeling of the home. In exchange for the city supporting the variance in this area, we would require that the property owner reduce below the current level the amount of impervious surface on the property. While it would be impossible to reduce the site coverage to 25 percent impervious, it can be reduced to approximately 40 percent. (Please note that decks are not included in impervious surface calculations unless the deck does not permit water to run down between the boards on the flooring, if there is a roof over the deck or if there is other impervious surface below the deck.) The balance of the expansion could be accomplished without a variance, but it would require a modification to the plans. The kitchen expansion would need to meet the 10 foot side yard setback and the deck outside the expansion would need to be shortened to meet the 75 foot lakeshore setback. Even with these restraints, there is considerable area for the house to expand. · The property should reduce the current percent impervious surface. It appears that the extent of the driveway could be reduced in several locations to achieve the reduction. Planning Case #04-07 Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 4 · Section 20-1122 (e) states: "For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the maximum driveway width shall not exceed thirty-six (36) feet. The minimum driveway width shall not be less than ten (10) feet." The current driveway width at the ROW line is 55 feet. A majority of the driveway exceeds 36 feet in width. · Section 20-1122 (e) states: "Driveways shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the side property lines, beginning at twenty (20) feet from the front yard setback unless an encroachment agreement is received from the city." The driveway does not currently meet the side property line setback on the west side of the property. · If a variance is (or variances are) approved, the applicant should work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake Minnewashta. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause an undue hardship. The applicant could expand the house and comply with the required building setbacks on the side and lake side. Additionally, the impervious surfaces can be reduced. The use of the existing garage, which is currently non-conforming, appears to be a reasonable request. The majority of the garage expansion on this side maintains the existing non-forming setback, the architectural dormers on the second story encroach closer to the property line. Normally, such architectural features are permitted to encroach in to setbacks. bo The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The condition upon which the petition for the variance is based is applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. There are numerous properties that are non- conforming and can be expanded without variances. There are also numerous properties in this neighborhood that have received variances. Co The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: While the proposed expansion will increase the value of the property, the intent of the variance over the garage is to provide two bedrooms for the property owner's children. Planning Case #04-07 Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 5 The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The expansion of the house to the side and toward the lakes would be new construction and therefore would be self-created hardship. However, the use and expansion of the garage, which is currently non-conforming, is caused partially because the house was developed prior to the current ordinance and the proposed expansion of these areas is dictated by the location of the existing structure. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The granting of the side yard variance, may infringe on the improvements to the neighboring property. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed front yard setback variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood since this structure already exists. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommends that the Planning C,ommission City Council approve the following two motions: A. "The Planning Commission City Council approves a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 43.9 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re-vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principal structure and Lake Minnewashta. 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations or demolition. Planning Case #04-07 Johnson Variance February 17, 2004 Page 6 5. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. g. "The m~,,;,~~ ,-,.,,,.,~, ,--^~;o~,~,,,,,,,oo,~,,, City Council denies the side yard, shoreland and lot coverage variance for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report." Attachments 1. Development Review Application 2. Letter from Tom and Jackie Johnson dated 01/14/04 3. Architectural Plans 4. Street Elevation Picture 5. Existing Structure Picture 6. Existing Deck Picture 7. 6' 9" Ceiling Picture 8. Driveway Picture 9. Room Above Garage Picture 10. Bedroom Picture 11. Kitchen Picture 12. Retaining Wall Picture 13. Impervious Surface Reduction Schematic 14. Affidavit of Mailing Notice, Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 15. Lot Survey Location Map 3637 South Cedar Drive City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-07 Hickory Red Cedar Point Road N Subject PropertyI LAKE MINNEWASHTA CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION . ~ · $~,~/" OWNER: APPLICANT: / TELEPHONE (Day t~e) ADDRESS: C!TVOFCHANHA$SFN ~ECEIVED CHANHASSEN P~ ANNING DEFT TELEPHONE: __ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* __ Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* __ Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal __ Zoning Ordinance Amendment __ Notification Sign Escrow-f~,r Filing Fees/Att~ Cost** (($50_.~U P/SPRNAC~ AP/Metes Bounds, $400 M~nor SUB) TOTALFEE$ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of thee property m,ust b§ incJuded with the application. ~,) E~:~~ .~'~ ~/f //.~.~ .~__/_.~, ~'~ / Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION TOTAL ACREAGE / / ¢ ~; ~/~? ~ 4'~ /::7- YES P~ESENT ~ND USE DESIGNATION ~EQUESTED ~ND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING NO This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard tothis request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by th/e applicant. '*) ,.~ / /' Sigf~atu¢ ~f Apl~dant..~ ~ /.. / . / ~ ~ .,,.~-'1..~~ ('si~at~r~ 0f Fee ~r ' -- Application Received on /0'4 Fee Paid ~'-~-~C., .oo Receipt No. ~)W//-'~ 9 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant'S address. January 14th, 2004 Re: 3637 South Cedar Drive Variance To whom it may Concern, This letter of description is to inform the members of the Planning committee and the city council our need for a variance on our home. The Variance will allow us to have a bedroom for both our son and daughter, at the present time both of the children are sharing the same room, our current lay out has a master bedroom and one bedroom. The addition will allow us to have a bedroom for both, as well as a bathroom to share. As per the plans we were able to utilize the room over the current garage by raising the existing roof. To accommodate this plan as well we are adding six feet to the west on to the garage below. All the added square footage allows the bedroom expansion to work. As far as the hard cover we are willing to match the current hard cover calculations as well as reduce by 3 to 5 % by adding in some planting areas. It is of our opinion we are not asking for unneeded space only making what is currently there, work. Variances requested are for the following: [] 30' set back on street side. (11' proposed - existing garage) [] 10' side yard set back. (7' proposed) Lq 75' from high water mark. (73 proposed) [] Hard Cover (to maintain existing 43.9%) Thank you very much. Tom and Jackie Johnson 3637 South Cedar Drive Chanhassen Mn Johnson m a~ol Jaok. i~ Johnson r ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTZ~Z~ and act<.ie Johnson b om ant Jaok, ie Johnson om ~nd Jack, in Johnson m ana Jackie Johnson Johnson an~ Jacki~ Johnson m and Jack. i~ Johnson ~_~_~ $O dTlf cED'AR DRIVE 6'1 CXls~N¢ 95,7.5 LOW>Zo0,~ 957.4 N 81'26'19" E, 0 I // ~ I (~) MANHOLE P~OP_osED NEW DECK NOT SET AT TF DOCKS PILED F I® / OHW ~V~L CONTou~ LINt CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 4, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Johnson Variance Request (3637 South Cedar Drive) - Planning Case No. 04- 07 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. · Engelh, hrdt, Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this ,q44 day of Q-..~/~,7_t.t a_~ ,2004. J- ' N0tary~ ~ - g:\eng\forms\affidavit.doc ~~ NotaryPul:)lic- Minnesota ~'~^ .CAR. VLR .COU. _NE._~. ~: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Setback and Lot Coverage Variances on Property Zoned RSF APPLICANT: Thomas & Jacqueline Johnson LOCATION: 3637 South Cedar Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Thomas & Jacqueline Johnson, is requesting setback and lot coverage variances to permit the expansion of a single-family home on a 0.27 acre lot zoned RSF located at 3637 South Cedar Drive. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or e-mail bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 5, 2004. Lake Minnewashta Subject Site City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Planning Case No. 04-07 Public Hearing Notification Area Red Lake Minnewashta Subject Site AARON J & ADRIENNE F THOMPSON 3711 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 ARLENE KAY HERNDON 3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9675 BIRUTA M DUNDURS 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 CHARLES F & VICKI LANDING 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9657 DEBORAH S LOCKHART & DIANE LEESON ANDING 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 DOUGLAS J & CAROLYN A BARINSKY 3719 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM TRUSTEES OF SEIM FAMILY TRUST 292 CHARLES DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9204 ELIZABETH J NOVAK 7210 JUNIPER EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9613 ELIZABETH J SAVAGE & HEIDI J SAVAGE 3715 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9769 EMIL & PATRICIA SOUBA 14025 VALE CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331-3017 ERIC L & LINDA M BAUER 3624 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 EVELYN Y BEGLEY 3701 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 GARY ALAN PETERSON & KAREN AUDREY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW EXCELSIOR MN 55331-5433 GARY PETERSON 1769 20TH AVE NW EXCELSIOR MN 55331-5433 GREGORY & JOAN DATTILO 7201 JUNIPER AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9614 GREGORY BOHRER 3706 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9768 JAMES & PATRICIA A MOORE 3630 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 JEAN D LARSON 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ~7721 JEFFREY L & MICHELLE A JOHNSON 3705 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 JILL D HEMPEL 3707 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 JOHN R MARX & HEIDI A RIGELMAN 3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9676 LINDA L JOHNSON 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 LUMIR C PROSHEK 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 MARIANNE I & RICHARD BANDING TRUSTEES OF TRUST 3715 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER 8321 VIEW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331-1430 PAMELA A SMITH 3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9675 RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING 3715 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 ROBERT CHARLES ANDING 3618 RED CEDAR PT EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 STEPHEN M GUNTHER & HELEN KATZ-GUNTHER 3628 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL PETER WOOD & LYNN M HAWLEY 4224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-1606 TAB B & KAY M ERICKSON 3720 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9687 THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON 3637 SOUTH CEDAR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9686 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 g:\plan~_004 planning cases\04-07 - johnson variance\ph notice labels.doc ADV.' rCE SURVEYING & ENGI3'-N, RING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 Fax (952) 474-8267 suRVEY FOR: TOM & JACKIE JOHNSON SURVEYED: December, 2003 DRAFTED: December 12, 2003 REVISED: January 19, 2004 to add dimensions. Also got a better idea of what the proposed deck is and this changed the proposed hard cover tabulation to plus 68 sq. fi. on the deck. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 17, except the East 10 feet thereof and all of Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK: I. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does no~t include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessa~, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing elevations and contours to show th, e topography &the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we not as familiar with your Plans as you are nor are we as familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confn'm that the proposals are what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over your project to gain their approvals if you can. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "·" Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. l~m~s,,__,/H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JAN g 0 ;~004 CHANHASSEN pLANNiNG DEPT GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 ( m H~").~ ) HARD COVER TABULATION: LOT AREA TO OHW: 11,590 Sq. Ft. % HARD COVER: 43.9% PROPOSED: House 2,604 Sq. Ft. Deck 768 Sq. Ft. Bituminous 1,770 Sq. Ft. Concrete 155 Sq. Ft. Raikoad Tie Wall 15 Sq. Ft. Rock Wall 70 Sq. Ft. Rip Rap by Lake 25 Sq. Ft. TOTAL: 5,407 Sq. Ft. % HARD COVER: 46.6% EXISTING: House 1,181 Sq. Ft. Garage 539 Sq. Ft. Deck 431 Sq. Ft. Bituminous 1,988 Sq. Ft. Concrete 827 Sq. Ft. Raikoad Tie Wall 15 Sq. Ft. Rock Wall 84 Sq. Ft. Rip Rap by Lake 25 Sq. Ft. TOTAL: 5,090 Sq. Ft. SEWER MANHOLE (~) FOUND BITUMINOUS SURFACE EXISTING GARAGE FIR EL= 957.5 EXISTING S1RUCTURE RAILROAD Tie EXISTING RESIDEN CE~ LOW FLOOR 957.4 PROPOSED NEW DECK EXISTING RESIDENCE APPROXIMATE -- AREA OF RIP RAP OHW LEVEL CONTOUR LINE WATER LEVEL DEC 2003 Dwg. No. 031571 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, Bethany Tjomhom, and Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet D. Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES TO PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 0.27 ACRE LOT ZONED RSF LOCATED AT 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, TOM AND ,IACKIE ~IOHNSON, PLANNING CASE No. 04-07. Public Present: Name Address Dave Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Craig. Claybaugh: What, do you happen to know Bob what the square footage of the side yard variance is? I know it was expressed in lineal footage but it's running at an askew angle, going from 2 foot 6. The dimensioning on my plans or the one present were too small to read. Generous: Yeah, it's approximately 20 square feet. Claybaugh: Okay. On table 3 with respect to the other lots in the area and the variances that have been granted, there wasn't any expression of dates. How far back does that table go? Generous: If you look at the case number, the first number represents the years. So it goes all the way back to 1975 and the latest one was in 2002. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Claybaugh: What year was the shoreland setback? Was that '87? Generous: That was the original shoreland. Aanenson: Probably when it was updated. Claybaugh: Okay, and I know we've discussed in the Carver Beach area but their property out there is a front walkout rambler? Is that accurate? Generous: Yes, it's a walkout. Claybaugh: Okay. What is the, and I don't know if you use best management practices handbook or what. You've used it express in the past but with respect with ramblers, what is reasonable square footage by current standards? Generous: Ordinance requires approximately 1,000 square feet. Claybaugh: So it's only 1,000 and obviously they're entitled to a 2 car garage and they're using what, 400 and some odd square feet or what is that? Generous: Right. Claybaugh: Okay. I wasn't able to come up with the square footage that they've got for a footprint on this. Do you happen to have that available? Generous: They show the existing house as 1,181 square feet and proposed at 2,604. Claybaugh: So right now the current footprint is actually in excess of what you identify as a reasonable, okay. Were any issues raised by any adjacent neighbors prior to this point? I understand there will be a public forum tonight but. Generous: No, I haven't had anyone that's come in to object to it. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have right now. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? Lillehaug: I have a couple. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Your list on page 3 of the existing variances that were approved. Recently we, or the city has approved a few variances that were approved actually as part of another approval. It wasn't a necessary variance on new construction but it was an existing variance. Is this, are all of these variances that were approved, are they variances Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 that were needed to expand on construction, because I think it's important? I kind of hit on that before is, I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Generous: There were two that were, three that were approved to permit new construction. The rest were for expansion. Aanenson: So if it was an existing lot of record, in order to get a house on there. It may have been undersized. Not a 15,000 square foot lot. Generous: Generally they may have the area, it's just they're too narrow. You have a lot of that in that neighborhood. Lillehaug: I guess I'm not sure if my question, if the question's being answered though. Are some of these, are a lot of these variances just simply being approved because they were already non-conforming and it was simply because they were non-conforming but not part of any new construction or expansion? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: So there are some then? Aanenson: There are. Lillehaug: And we, when I look at this I can't really distinguish between the two. Obviously I can't so. Aanenson: Well, except that the chart does say approved for a new home. There's 3 that are. Generous: Yeah. 8715, 9104 and 9604. Lillehaug: Okay. The next question on page 4. Finding letter A. You indicate the use of the existing garage which is currently non-conforming appears to be a reasonable request. Can you explain that? I'm not quite following the thought. Generous; Basically they want to maintain and expand that. It has a partial second flooring so they're going to raise the roof on that and it seems reasonable that if they're using that existing structure, that's a reasonable request. Lillehaug: What is staff's thoughts on actually expanding it to the front of the garage and increasing the non-conformity on the front yard. Are you saying that that's a good trade off for reducing the impervious area? Generous: Yes, because their expansion would be over existing impervious so they're not creating a new one and the new impervious in that location, plus we're going to get additional removal. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Lillehaug: Okay. I think that's all I have for now. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any other questions from staff? Slagle: I just have one. Bob, as we look at again page 3 with the previous variances that have been sent to the city and approved, when we talk about the lakeshore setbacks, I think it's safe to say that the commission has looked at those closely over the last few years and my question is, is if you know on some of those requests where an example like 9604 or 9201, where we're looking at again numerous feet of variance. Were those on lots where, I mean was it a tight, short lot if you will and they were already encroaching if you will? Generous: Yes. They were substandard. Slagle: Okay. Do we know, do you know how wide this deck is now? The current deck? Dan Anderson: Left to right or... Slagle: Towards the lake. From house to lake. Dan Anderson: 12 foot. Slagle: 12 feet, okay. That's it. Tjornhom: I have one question on impervious surface and the deck. The deck is considered part of the structure of the house, is that correct? Generous: Yes. Tjornhom: And so that it's not part of the landscape per se because water can run through it, correct? Generous: Right, and generally we don't count decks against impervious surface. However under this there's a concrete patio. Tjornhom: That was my next question. Well then that's, okay. Generous: So that takes the impervious. Sacchet: So the deck does count as impervious because it's solid underneath? Generous: Well the solid underneath that counts. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: That counts, okay. Okay, because I had a question about that too. Now, I'm still not sure exactly where the 75 foot lakeshore setback. Can you point that out on the map once more? You hinted at it before but I didn't catch it clear enough. Generous: ...the elevation. 75 feet would be to this point. Sacchet: So it's about halfway through the existing deck? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Roughly. Okay. And then just to be, we hit on this a little bit with those variances that you list here which was a pretty considerable list. None of those could be considered the precedent for this? It's a tricky question but you're in a better position to answer that than I. Generous: They're not exactly the same. They are, some of them are on sub-standard lots and this is narrower. Sacchet: This lot is a little bigger than most of those other ones? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Alright. I think that's all the questions. One more question Rich? Slagle: One more question Mr. Chair. Again getting back to the deck Bob. On page 6 of the photos that the applicant was kind enough to provide, I see existing deck...replacing bad wood. Is that to mean, from what you know, is that deck that we see a picture of, is that a recent deck or is that an old deck? Generous: It's repairing an old deck. Probably mostly new wood. Sacchet: Well thank you. If the applicant would want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know any additional information you'd like to add to this. Dan Anderson: My name is Dan Anderson. I'm representing Tom and Jackie Johnson. Tom Johnson: 3637 South Cedar Drive. Excelsior. 55331. Dan Anderson: I want to address a couple small things. On this, as far as the hard cover and working with that, that doesn't seem to be too much of an issue to come up with that. ...underneath the deck you know there's, there's older concrete underneath there that can be worked with. The entrance to the driveway can be worked with. We want to improve the site as well. They bought the house and it was, it needed a lot of work and they have already done some work on the interior to make it suitable for their family and they've been there about a year and a half, two years and as per some of the pictures you've seen, 5 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 they've got a small boy and a small girl, they're sharing the same bedroom so the big key here is to get these bedrooms located up over this garage here. We're okay with using the existing structure. We've got a garage that's a sub par garage. You can't hardly put a mid sized vehicle in it, so where it expands out here so it can be useable, and also create a legitimate front entryway. It doesn't have furniture right now. A basement walk in. It was basically a cabin. So we can make all the work and like I said, we're okay with working with the hard cover issues and working with the driveway. The one thing though I would love to lend an ear to is this corner fight here. I don't know if you guys have an interior picture of, do you have an interior shot? Sacchet: It's in the packet, yes. Dan Anderson: The interior, this doorway fight here that brings us back into the bedroom area. It lines up center on this wall to allow a per code bathroom. That's a minimum sized bathroom per code. And to get the proper storage for the kids closet, to make the bedrooms actually work with the kitchen we came to this corner right here and went straight out from this. If there's one thing, you've got a very non-conforming neighborhood. You walk down the neighborhood, a lot of the things that aren't architecturally correct, and don't even come close. And what we don't want to do is add to that, add to that. We want to be architecturally correct and keep this wall as straight as possible. To move this wall in fight here 3 feet eliminates having a kitchen where it's supposed to go and to be able to get back into the bedroom area, to have a code width door, code width bathroom, and a code width hallway and move everything over this way. Now I encroach on a code width stairs, which is, you know if you look at this real close we're not adding any exorbitant square footage. We're not, nothing is that large. And even the deck over here can be, that could be all met. To meet with the codes and the setbacks, I'd like to make this redesign to make this all work just fine. Sacchet: But angling it is not enough. I don't think that corner that you're pointing out is the issue. It's that corner. Dan Anderson: Now if you go back to, I'll take you back to the survey. That corner is right there. That's 2.3 or something. Generous: 2.6. Dan Anderson: 2.6 and it's only 2 foot 6 inches into the setback, but if we can walk away with that one, then I can make all these items in here work. And like I said, typical hallway, typical bathroom, typical stairs going down. It's all pretty typical. And we can work, we'll actually work with obviously the rest of the, there is a small, I mean it's a parking lot out there. We can work with, there's a lot of asphalt to remove. You know and we want to remove that. That's where our landscape design. Make it more inviting. And we're willing to spend Tom's money as much as we can. And that's where we're going to spend it. But anyway, this corner is a very important corner. This corner hinges on this whole layout fight here. To get to that existing structure, which we just want to use what's there. So if I had to say there's one thing we want to walk away with this, Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 where it's already been granted to us, we agree with that but we'd like to add that comer to that if we possibly could and the rest will definitely work. Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, a couple questions. The stairs that you pointed to, those are new stairs or are those existing stairs? Dan Anderson: Currently those are concrete stairs, an outside situation. Claybaugh: But that's the existing entry? Dan Anderson: Same entry moved and we're just going to put them back in place. Inside the structure. Claybaugh: But that's the existing positioning of the entry to the house? Dan Anderson: Yes, correct. Claybaugh: Okay. And with respect to the 2.6 feet, is that dimension to the outside of the eaves? Staff. Generous: The 2.6 feet would be to the wall. Claybaugh: To the wall, okay. Dan Anderson: There again I think we have about a 12 inch or 11 inch soffit and fascia and that can even be worked with design wise. Backing up a little bit to your question, that is not the front entryway to this house. That's just an entryway to the side door to what's currently the kitchen. The actual, they're calling it the front door. It's the basement entrance on a lower level. Claybaugh: Right, so the stairs that you're pointing to are a consequence of building a new vestibule and that's where you orientate them? Dan Anderson: Right. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Lillehaug: Sure, I have a question. Looking at that same diagram there, you're carrying that wall on the top I'll say. Other wall, directly across from it, yep. You're projecting that out from the existing wall of the garage. Dan Anderson: Yeah, we're just lining it up. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Lillehaug: Why, and the problem is when you get to the top right corner, that's where the encroachment is across the setback. So why do you have to carry the house, the portion of the house wall, why does that have to carry on from the garage? Why can't it be shifted at the back of the garage where it is conforming? Shift it 2.6 feet and then you have a parallel wall going back. You do lose a little square footage in the house but it still needs a variance. Do you see a problem in that? And just one more thing, and I think it's a pantry if ! were to look back on this. I mean that can be reduced in size and maybe even relocate it, and then you'll still have a conforming bathroom and stairwell and you're just basically the reducing the size of the pantry. Is that not doable? Dan Anderson: It's not the pantry that I'm worried about reducing and... It's having people walk in and out of this hallway. If in fact this, I'll draw a line here. If this moved in, and this is our work space, now we have an architecturally, we have an architectural issue here about it being in the way of the hallway. Having a clear hallway to shut this off and walk in and out of this. Because this is their main living area fight now. Kids are here. The main area for the family is fight here. I'm trying just to keep this open and keep it so it matches the rest of the architecture and to angle this wall wouldn't be, that would be an. Sacchet: Architectural harasses? Dan Anderson: Yeah. That'd be like, yeah no, no. Bad idea. Lillehaug: We're talking just 2 1/2 feet I mean. Dan Anderson: Well 2 1/= feet, what that measurement is right there and that puts you in the doorway. When you're ending up with the kitchen cabinets that way. Sacchet: Yeah once you have a counter. Dan Anderson: Once you put a counter in there, and I'm standing there. Well if I'm standing there you're definitely not going to get through the door. Lillehaug: Okay. Dan Anderson: You understand what I'm saying? Lillehaug: That's all I have. Sacchet: One more Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. To dovetail Steve's question here. The L return on the left side of the sink, on your cabinetry there, what is that? There's no dimensioning on it. It runs parallel with the pantry. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Dan Anderson: Right here? Claybaugh: Yeah. That dog leg return there. Dan Anderson: That fight there is about 1 foot 8. Claybaugh: In terms of the projection. I'm looking at the base cabinets there, on the wall that the sink is located. Those are going to be a 2 foot depth so just I'm thinking that dog leg out of there has got to at least 3 foot 6. Dan Anderson: I don't have my full set of plans here but this, where it turns 90 and goes this way, that's actually about 2 foot 8 to 3 foot right in there. Claybaugh: Okay. So actually if, there certainly is, you'd lose the L return on it and I understand you don't want to walk down a hallway into the back of somebody preparing food, but. Dan Anderson: Well my only issue is, then I only have about 10 inches to stand. Claybaugh: If you take all of it. I'm talking about mitigating the first, okay. That's the extent of my questions. Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you want to add from your end? Rich has a question. Slagle: Mr. Chair, I thought someone might ask a question about the deck but let me just ask you know what are your thoughts from the deck as far as falling within either the setback or reaching some type of compromise with the staff's recommendation and your proposal. Dan Anderson: Can you see what I sketched there. I could do something like this to make this work here. The grade is such that I would have liked to have the stairs built within that square footage of the deck. As it is, the deck is kind of exposed from down over here. We don't want them to cross the front because it blocks off views but they can come off over here, and we could do something like this over here would be kind of sharp looking. It would also look architecturally correct and have enough footage here where people can pass. That we can work with. That's not an issue. You can just see the layout on the main house, it flows so nicely and it all works the way it should work by keeping my 6 foot into the setback. And maybe even a compromise with 2 foot 6. Maybe you know I'll split the difference or something because that would give me, if you split the difference on that one, as you had said, we'd probably have a good foot and a half if you're standing there and have people walk by and not be an issue. Claybaugh: You know we want to leave you really with any less than possibly 2 feet but I don't have any dimensions on the plan. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Dan Anderson: Thank you. Claybaugh: I did have one extra. Did you explore options with locating the stairs? That's one of the things that you identified as your string of code issues starting with the current hallway, code bathroom, and code stairs. Obviously did you explore possibly taking it in through the living room or orientating those slightly differently to possibly recapture some of that space that you're requiting a variance for? Dan Anderson: Ah yes. Let me pull up existing structure. If you look at the way that the property sits in it's current state, you'll see that that is the most natural way to pull the stairs up. There's currently stairs tight here. But when I put the stairs, if I leave those stairs where they currently land, I then tear up this whole, this spot right here and I've got a dead spot here. Claybaugh: Right, no I'm not suggesting that you should orientate them where they currently are, but in terms of adjusting them or aligning them a couple feet, I don't have any note there on the drawings either. I'm talking in terms of mitigating. I'm just asking if you explored it. Architectural orientation out there, some structural components that prohibited you from doing that. Dan Anderson: Structure, the old comer of the house is tight here and there's less messing around with the whole roof, the wall system, the concrete blocks the wall, where they're currently stay we want to keep them. And outside as well as the inside right here. Claybaugh: Okay, but you did explore it? Dan Anderson: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: One more architectural question. You made it pretty clear that angling the wall would be pretty awful architecturally. Would it be as awful to put a jig in it rather than one straight line? Dan Anderson: We had thought about that about where the sink is, or where this stove goes, you can jog it in. There again you move the island in, it interrupts the door and then there's a lot of wasted space in there with the cabinetry. I think this is better, a simple compromise on the 2 foot 6 setback is either we split it or we work with what, you know go into the setback 2 foot 6 are the two best options. Sacchet: It seems like there's quite a bit of space on the other side of the island. Dan Anderson: Over here? Yeah, there is. Oh, there's this space out here but I think what you've got to look at, if you put yourself in this kitchen. I don't know if I've got a, I've got to look through this to see if I've got a cross section. Finished cross section. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Okay, right here. Now we've got to zoom on that thing. There. If right here...come forward. This whole cabinet right here goes away. This thing goes away. And to keep that line straight is going to take me away from just orientating the kitchen and having that wasted space there. Sacchet: Okay, thanks. Claybaugh: I'm sorry. Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead Craig. You've got another one? Claybaugh: You identified the hallway inbetween the pantry and the powder room there as it's labeled, as a code hallway. My dimensions on that, and like I said they're extremely small here on the reprint but it looks like 4 foot 8 1/2. Dan Anderson: Which one you looking at there? Claybaugh: I'm looking at the hallway. Inbetween the pantry and the powder room. Dan Anderson: Okay. Slagle: You're saying up on the landing of the kids room, is where you see it? Dan Anderson: Right. Sacchet: It's hard to read. Claybaugh: Now obviously the door opening is 3 foot and that's what you want but you've got 4 foot, and I don't know if that's inside frame, an inside frame and then you've got 4 foot 8 V2 but that's certainly in excess of what code requires, unless it's something I'm not aware of. Dan Anderson: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay, what would you site as code for that application? Dan Anderson: Well we could probably skinny that up about, I could probably skinny that up, I think if we were to split that number and jog this. Claybaugh: What I'm after is if we left you what would be reasonable for an L so somebody preparing a meal in the kitchen wouldn't be obstructing the flow of the hallway. Backing off that 3 foot 6 dimension that you identified and mitigating the width and getting that down to more of a code width on the hallway that you've got between the pantry and the powder room, combination of those two I would expect would match your 2 foot 6, at which point at the back of the garage you could jog that addition. So that your kitchen layout could still function. It wouldn't compromise the code restroom. It 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 certainly wouldn't compromise because the hallway isn't to code right now. It's in excess of code. Dan Anderson: I think we could probably get those...it'd probably be pretty close. If I brought this back... Sacchet: There it is. Saw the back of your head instead of the drawing. Alright. Dan Anderson: That fight there. I forgot that measurement. Foot and a half or so, but that does go back to my statement of splitting it or something. That gets us closer obviously. Claybaugh: Right, but I mean if you drew a line down the side of the hallway and you narrowed that hallway up to even 3 foot 6. You had a 3 foot 6 hallway through there, okay. You come out of there, as best I can ascertain, it's 4 foot 8 1/2 and it's very small on my drawings, okay. So that's a net of a foot 2 1/2. You said 3 foot 6 is what your L return or your dog leg return was on your cabinetry. 2 feet would be reasonable I think. Okay. So that's a net of ! foot 6 and you picked up 1 foot 2 so you actually got a couple inches to take back and work with however you want to redistribute it. Dan Anderson: That makes sense. Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: I apologize but I thought more about my deck question. Is it safe to say that the deck was built, the old deck was built prior to the Johnson's purchasing the property? Dan Anderson: No question. There's pictures in your packet that show that it was an existing structure. Actually it was pretty unsafe and they were trying to make it safe. There's a couple bad footings that we had to fix up and that kind of thing. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Good discussion. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come forward, address this item, this is your chance. Anybody want to express any aspects about this case? Please come forward. Nobody come forward, I'll close the public hearing. Oops, there's somebody. If you want to state your name and address for the record. Let us hear what you have to say please. Alright, it's all your's. Dave Bangasser: Hi. I'm Dave Bangasser. The property directly to the east that we're spending quite a bit of time talking about. 3633 South Cedar Drive. It's been in my wife's family for about 60 years. You'd think that if the property's been in my wife's family that long that maybe she'd be here talking to you, but we took a vote and when the vote was over, it was quite clear to me that my vote didn't count. We're generally very positive about the plan. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: Just to clarify, you're on the side where they want to be closer? Okay. Just to be real clear about that. Dave Bangasser: Just to the east. Sacchet: Where that side yard setback is being requested? Dave Bangasser: So again, we're generally very positive about the plan. I think the designer has been very creative with the plan, both the layout of the plan and particularly the tower is a great design. We do have a concern for the side yard setback. The last time I talked to Tom, some time in the fall. We went out there and looked at it and I think Tom you indicated that you were going to jog the wall and you weren't going to ask for a variance there. And the next thing I knew 4 days ago I got a notice saying you were asking for a variance. Needless to say I was surprised by that. We have a relatively tight 40 'foot lot. One of the smallest on the lake. Again, as Bob mentioned, it's a very old subdivision. At 70 feet the Johnson's property is one of the biggest lots in the area. Not the biggest but among the bigger lots there. Because of the way the property line angles, and obviously that's a lot of the problems that we're talking about here. Because of the way the property line angles, the addition, and in particular the deck. In particular the deck, we really have a problem with the deck. With that angle, the deck appears to be oriented more towards our lakeshore. Not completely but again because of that angle it's geared towards our lakeshore so when we're down by the beach, if they're out on the deck, which as proposed is within 5 feet of the property, it just felt to us like we'd be almost imposing upon their space. I have to say I was really irritated that you showed the deck within 5 feet of the property line and never bothered to call. There's absolutely no function for it. There's no reason to line everything up. If anything, jogs add interest architecturally and I clearly was not happy with that. My wife was not happy with that. There's an existing mature evergreen tree that's right at the corner of that proposed deck which would have to go if the plan was built as proposed. That evergreen provides a nice buffer there right now. I think enough's been said about the plan itself. Again I see no purpose for what appears to me to be a 57 foot long deck across the front of that property. The kitchen, I agree with the earlier comments that you know I think modifications could be made. Quite frankly the house, I don't have a problem with. I think you've done a nice job of minimizing the windows that are oriented towards our property. I really wouldn't have strong objections with that but the deck clearly is an issue. We'd like to see that deck pulled back as far as possible. Again I think with the creativity that you've displayed with the design, I don't know why some of these modifications couldn't be made and still be a very functional house for you and you know again, we support all the other variances. We're concerned about the side yard setback. We think it'd be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and that's all I have to say. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to address this item? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments and discussion. Anybody? Lillehaug: Mr. Chair, could I ask a couple questions of staff? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I just want to get a clarification on the deck and encroachment of the deck, as well as the eaves into the side yard setback. My understanding is the eaves are supposed to be, they are supposed to be included in the setback? Generous: They're part of the variance, correct. Lillehaug: But they're not included as part of the variance right now as far as the distance, is that right? Generous: That's my understanding. They're not incorporated. Lillehaug: So actually the variance would have to be even more than it's shown? Generous: For the eaves, yes. Lillehaug: 11 inches I guess more. Okay. Now the second part of the question is the deck. Can the deck encroach into the side yard setback? Generous: The deck may encroach to within 5 feet of the side property line. Sacchet: Is that it? Okay. We have some more answers. Any discussion? Comments. Claybaugh: Would it be possible Mr. Chair to have the applicant comment with respect to the evergreen buffer? That it was something that hadn't been addressed. Sacchet: Do you want to address that? Claybaugh: I don't know if that's appropriate or not. Sacchet: Yeah, it's a valid question. I mean the concern that the neighbor brought up with the evergreen would have to be cut down because of the deck expansion. Dan Anderson: I think we've already made a general decision. As I commented earlier, Rich's question on the deck, we can work with the deck. That's not a major importance. I couldn't agree more with the neighbor on the deck. We can tie that back into a nice design on that... Tom Johnson's could not be heard. Sacchet: You can work with it? Tom Johnson: We can work with that. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, with bringing the deck in some. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Tom Johnson: I think that's fine. Sacchet: Yeah, I wonder whether that would actually make this, take the space for that evergreen. Dan Anderson: Trim off that tree a little bit but not enough to damage the tree or lose... The key is the buffer, is the way I understood it. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Comments. Discussion from the commissioners. Anybody. Lillehaug: Can I ask staff one more question? Sacchet: Yes. Lillehaug: Could you put the sketch back up showing the 75 foot OHWL line in reference to that tree. That's the tree we're talking about. Generous: 75 feet actually because the shoreline of the lake is a little closer than that. I was showing the 12 foot deck extension so this basically is a straight line. Lillehaug: Now a deck cannot encroach into the 75 foot. Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay. Dan Anderson: Can ! ask one question? What was the side yard setback for a deck? 5 feet? Generous: 5 feet. Aanenson: Just to be clear, when someone's asking for a variance, you can attach any reasonable condition you want to to mitigate that, and that might be the encroachment into the side yard. So while that's a standard... Claybaugh: Point of clarification Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Go ahead. Claybaugh: 5 foot setback with respect to the deck. Is that something that's grandfathered in because the existing deck is within 5 feet or is that? Generous: No. The code provides... Claybaugh: The code does provide so it isn't the 10 foot for that. Okay. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Aanenson: For a deck only. Sacchet: Alright. Where do we stand with this? Lillehaug: Well I can start in comments. Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I'm going to hit the four points I guess that we're talking about. First of all I think the applicant has reasonable use of the property as it currently is. I think that's the number one point that needs to be made. Number two point I guess would be is, I think we need to encourage refurbishing of the house. It's an older house. Somehow we need to encourage that but I guess number one, impervious area. My position is not increasing that at all, and I would stand firm on that. Whatever happens we cannot increase that impervious area because it's already non-conforming and it's grossly non-conforming. Front yard setback, you know I don't have a huge problem with it but I really do think there's already a reasonable use of that existing garage. To me it appears it's 24 foot deep. That's a standard depth of a garage. It's not cramped. That's probably the depth of my garage if I remember right. So expanding that garage to the front increasing the non-conformance, you know I'm not totally sold on that either. Side yard setback, I think there's many, many different options that can be, that could take place inside the house. Relocating the stairwell to one location or the other. I think I saw 4 baths in the new layout of the house. Is that a reasonable use? I guess I'm not going to say it is or isn't but there's many other things that can be done in the layout of that house to not encroach in that 10 foot side yard setback. I do not support any encroachment in that 10 foot side yard setback. What else would there be? Number 4. That'd be the wetland, 75 foot setback. Again, I don't support any encroachment into that at all. Sacchet: Thanks for laying it out Steve. Any other comments? Claybaugh: Yeah, I'll take a stab at it. Let's see here. With respect to the front yard setback, I agree with my fellow commissioner that 24 feet depth on the garage is reasonable use. Again the plan that ! have doesn't mention what the additional lineal foot attached to the proposed addition, but I guess I view that as the proliferation of a non-conformance with respect to, until it gets or achieves the front yard setback and I haven't totally made up my mind on that. With respect to the side yard setback, I agree that there's a number of components with the house's interior that could be modified, re- worked and it's well within their grasp to get that down so it's a variance free application. With respect to the deck and encroachment of the lakeshore, I don't see a compelling reason to support that. The, with respect to the hard surface coverage, I would suspect that when some of these things are addressed that they will be within line with what they're current non-conformance is and won't require a vmSance or won't require further intensification of it so, that's my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Any additional comments? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Tjornhom: Yeah, I might come off sounding crazy I guess after hearing everybody else but you know, I'm all for taking something old and making it new and improving our city and making our lakeshores look better and our neighborhoods and so I thought it was a nice plan. I don't have a problem with expanding the garage. I don't have a problem with...architect or your builder seemed to be reasonable in working with these people and getting it back into some better parameters with regard to the lakeshore, and I'm still confused about the side yard setback. I hate to wreck a whole plan and something that seems to function for 2.6 feet. You know, it just seems to me kind of a crime to, well see I was thinking. But when the neighbor came up and had problems with it then I think okay, it is hurting somebody else and it's affecting somebody else and so then maybe it needs to be re-worked and so I guess those are my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Slagle: I will just make my quick. I think I would tag along with Bethany, and especially when she mentioned the functionality of the plan. I think it's a well thought out plan. I think with the concern of the neighbor, it led me to this thinking and the thinking is that it might be worth tabling this and allowing them to work out potential plan that could take into account the neighbors... Sacchet: Real quick where I stand. It's not a hardship but I think it's a reasonable use to expand on that whole garage. I think that's pretty clear. I agree with staff's position basically with the whole thing with one addition. I would like to see a condition that we preserve that evergreen. I think that would balance the scale in terms of the neighbors concern. But other than that I agree with staff. I'm not sure whether it needs to be tabled. I think the position is relatively clear. I think we've worked through different options. We established that there are ways to work it and I have full trust, I mean you've obviously put in a real quality project together here so personally I don't think we need to see it again. So with that I'd like to see a motion please. Can we make this into one motion or do we have to make it in two steps? Generous: Well you could combine them. One's for approval and the rest are denial. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission approves a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions which aren't number but I would number them, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Sacchet: Five would be the new one? No, no there's one on the other side there, okay. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Lillehaug: And then 6 would be the new one. And the condition would be, to fully preserve the tree that we were speaking of. Sacchet: Evergreen to the east of the deck. Lillehaug: Yes. Sacchet: We know which one you're talking about. We have a motion, is there a second? Claybaugh: I'll second. Slagle: Point of clarification. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: So are we suggesting that this motion is to deny the applicant's request for a side yard setback and a lakeshore? Sacchet: Yes, that will be the next motion. Should we make it into one motion? Generous: Well you can add that as the second part of the motion. Sacchet: We probably should make it into one. Lillehaug: Okay. And then should I just keep going on with my motion then? Sacchet: Yes. Why don't we add that to it. Lillehaug: Okay. And adding to my previous motion, I recommend that the Planning Commission denies the side yard shoreland, and lot coverage variance for the expansion of the house. Same house, in according with the findings of fact in the staff report. Sacchet: Do we need another second since we added? Claybaugh: Yes, I'll second again. Sacchet: Okay. We have a second to both parts. Any discussion? Friendly amendments? Slagle: Another clarification. Just so we're clear, we, myself, I'll speak for myself. Approve of giving them the side variance setback and a lakeshore setback and the front yard setback, assuming that the deck would work, will actually be voting against this motion? Sacchet: Say again. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: I lost you. Okay, you got an answer. Whatever the question. Slagle: What I'm trying to say is, there's a motion to approve the way it's written. Sacchet: Pretty much the way it's written, yes. That's correct. We're basically approving the front yard variance. We're denying the side yard, shoreland and coverage variance request. Okay? Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the side yard, shoreland and lot coverage variance and recommends approval of a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 43.9 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re-vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principle structure and Lake Minnewashta. 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations or demolition. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. The applicant shall fully preserve the evergreen located to the east of the deck. All voted in favor, except Slagle and Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Sacchet: There's two nays and three ayes. That means this has to go to City Council. Aanenson: Correct. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: Automatically goes to City Council. We need a big majority to make this...so since it's not a big majority you will see the City Council on that, and they will make a final decision. Do we know when this goes to City Council'? Aanenson: It'd be the 8th. Sacchet: On the 8th? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. In summary for council, we, this is a very interesting mix of situations. I think everybody, certainly you should specify why you voted nay. What we voted for here 3 to 2 is that we do agree with front yard setback. That we consider that a reasonable use. That we do not agree to give a variance on the side yard setback because we think there are ample possibilities to mitigate that, as well as with the deck. We definitely want to have the coverage reduced, not increased. That's the one area where we can mitigate the non-conformance of the situation, or the shoreland setback is the most sensitive in terms of the nature so anything you want to add in the for side? Why we are voting for this. Claybaugh: Yeah actually clarification. I made the point previously in my comments about the 24 foot deep garage. I think that was an argument for intensifying that non- conformity but in looking a little closer at the plans, I believe it's less a function of the garage depth and more a function of making the bedrooms above it work out. And as such I don't have any reservations about that. I wanted to clarify that. Sacchet: Any more comments? Okay, the cons. Any comments why you voted against for City Council? You want to summarize your issue? Slagle: Concurring on the efforts on the deck, and then probably having...on the description of ample. Sacchet: So what would be your balance point? Slagle: I think it's fine... Sacchet: It's fine encroaching with the kitchen. And the same for you Bethany? Tjornhom: I'd also like to add that it seemed to me that the neighbor and the applicant and the builder seem willing to work together to reach a reasonable agreement. Sacchet: Okay, so let them work basically. And last comment for council, that evergreen. I think we agree that we'd like to save that evergreen. So that's the summary for council. Lillehaug: One more quick comment? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Didn't we clarify Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I think it needs to be a 3 foot 6 inch setback with the eaves. that earlier, and not a 2 foot 6, so it's more than 2 foot 6. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO OFFICE~ AND A REZONING FROM A2 TO OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, lSD #112~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-08. Public Present: Name Address Rod Franks Paul Schlueter Ben Merriman Bev Stofferahn Ellen Rawson Lori Juelich Karen Kennedy Gary Feldick Gene Kruchoski Peggy Emerson 8694 Mary Jane Circle 427 Campfire Cv, Chaska 8156 Mallory Court 8123 Marsh Drive 2266 Boulder Road 2246 Stone Creek Lane East 2051 Boulder Road 2231 Boulder Road 2030 Boulder Road 8409 Stone Creek Court Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Questions from staff. Slagle: Kate, in offering the two options if you will, would there be a reason the applicant would be opposed to that, from what you know? Aanenson: No, we did speak to them about that and I think they're comfortable with that. Again we don't anticipate that, but for some reason the school district decided or couldn't build the school in the future, it just protects our options of providing industrial, and also gives the residents some level of protection of what they think might go in there. Slagle: Okay. On page 3, where it talks about OI district, iMaximum height. Aanenson: Two stories. 21 March 2, 2004 Via FAX 952/227-1110 Mr. Bob Generous Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhasscn, MN 55317 CITY OF (;I-iANF-JA$SEN RE: Tom & Jackie Johnson Variance Requests 3637 South Cedar Drive Dear Bob: We are writing this letter to express our support of the Johnson's variance requests that the City Council will consider on March 8, 2004. As you know, we spoke at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on February 17th and expressed concerns regarding portions of the plan while expressing a generally positive view of the overall concept and architecture. Our property at 3633 South Cedar Drive is directly east of the Johnson home. Our primary concern was the location of the deck approximately five feet fi'om our joint property line. We had initially been concerned xvith the request for a side yard variance to build the kitchen to within 7.4 feet of the property line. However, in subsequent discussions with Tom we indicated we wot_lid support tile originally submitted kitchen plan since it minimized windows on our side and xwts an appealing architectural design. We are in receipt of tile plans submitted to tile Planning Department on March 2nd. This revised plan goes beyond our request to move the deck away from the property line by moving both the deck and the kitchen back. The kitchen would be setback ten feet from the property line with the east end of the deck aligned with the east wall of the addition. We are very appreciative of the Johnson's willingness to listen to our concerns and revise their plan. We believe tile Johnson's addition as proposed will be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood ! Thank you for tile opportunity to present our views. Sincerely, Dave & Mary Jo Bangasser